Clinicians’ perceptions of the clinical utility of the Multiple Errands Test for adults with neurological conditions

Abstract

This study examined the clinical utility of the Multiple Errands Test (MET) from the perspective of clinicians. Employing a qualitative descriptive design, in-depth semi-structured interviews were conducted with eight occupational therapists. Participants had an average of 12 years clinical experience and their experience using the MET varied. Interviews were transcribed and analysed using framework analysis. Three dominant themes emerged from the data. Theme 1 was that clinicians value the MET because it reflects real-life functioning. Clinicians perceived the MET to be a unique assessment collecting data on functional performance, and sensitive to higher level cognitive deficits. Theme 2 was that the MET could be used flexibly depending on one's rehabilitation goals. Clinicians employed the MET as an assessment to inform the direction of treatment and as a component of their intervention. Theme 3 was that the MET is a challenging assessment requiring buy in and commitment from therapists. This study is the first to report clinicians’ perspectives of the clinical utility of the MET. It reinforces the importance of ecologically valid tests, and augments existing research evaluating psychometric properties of the MET by describing how the MET has been employed in rehabilitation settings to improve health outcomes for adults with neurological conditions.

Keywords:

• Ecological validity
• Assessment
• Executive functions
• Clinical utility